Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

[Adrian Raddatz]

I'm more interested in the numbers for the WMF as a whole. One CEO does not
make an emissions problem, and in a global-reaching organization I'd hope
that the CEO would be flying around a bit. Focusing on the ten or so
executives at the Foundation seems like a sensational approach rather than
a useful one.

Adrian


On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:24 AM Fæ  wrote:

> Nice to see that https://wikimediafoundation.org has a banner linking
> to the global climate strike today.
>
> Can anyone produce some verifiable metrics that the WMF has taken
> significant action to reduce the total number of aircraft flights the
> WMF uses?
>
> I am asking as though there are no transparently published figures for
> how much the WMF spends on air travel, I recall that the Katherine
> Mahler was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, where is was part
> of her impressive executive profile to be "on the road" for 200 days
> of the year. This probably puts Katherine in the very top numbers for
> CEOs with damaging carbon footprints resulting from travelling so
> often by flying.[1] If the WMF wants to be seen as an ethical company
> when it comes to reducing their organizational impact on climate
> change, perhaps this could start with publishing travel figures for
> the CEO and the rest of the management team, so that everyone can see
> whether there is year on year improvement, or none.
>
> Thanks again for the banner, it does help increase the sense of urgency.
>
> Links:
> 1.
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-35-year-old-executive-director-of-wikimedia-travels-1529588701
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Adrian Raddatz]

Their approach hasn't changed. There are maybe just more ongoing projects
than there were in the past. But yes, it can't be fun for anyone involved.

I briefly discussed some of this above, but I'll list a few options that
the WMF could take to make this process less consistently bad:
1. Determine benefits of any project to the editing and reading community.
If there are none, that may be fine, but consider balancing it out with a
concurrent project that is providing benefit to those communities. *Frame
any project in terms of the desired benefits*.
2. Find allies and adopt a joint approach. If you are running projects that
will benefit some part of the editing and reading community, find people
who would benefit, involve them in the entire project lifecycle, and
utilize them in communications and consultations to move the conversation
away from community vs. WMF.
3. Engage much earlier than is currently done. Rather than always bringing
"solutions" to the community (that the community invariably doesn't like),
bring problems to the community and ask how these problems could be solved.
You can even structure the problem statement and questions in a way that
will get at your ideal solution. Again though, it depends on whether this
is actually a problem for the editing/reading communities.
4. Do more for your primary stakeholders! Every area of the projects has
outstanding technical and social issues that the communities want solved
and that haven't been worked on for years. In my area of interest, we have
been asking for better CAPTCHAs for years. Dial back the grants program a
bit and use the money to provide services for the communities that you are
supposed to be serving. If you do this, then the community appetite to
accept some WMF-initiated changes will be greater once we think that you
are actually on our side.
5. Bring the community, or select community members, into project
governance structures. Make a steering committee, host elections for
community seats, use a combination appointed/elected model, etc for major
program areas. This is what the community-selected board seats should do,
except the organization is too large for the board to function in that way.

Adrian Raddatz


On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:51 AM Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> I only started following WMF stuff more closely around 2 years ago, but I
> don't remember it being this permanent state of crisis as it is now, with
> an ever increasing - now, apparently at an accelerating pace too -
> detachment from the onwiki communities.
> This is tiresome and distracting for those of us who are volunteers at the
> Wikimedia projects, but it's certainly painful too for the WMF staff.
>
> What's going on with the WMF?
>
> Paulo
>
> Pine W  escreveu no dia segunda, 9/09/2019 à(s)
> 07:59:
>
> > It crosses my mind that I would think that some of the WMF office staff
> > would also be getting tired of crisis, conflict, and unwelcome surprises.
> > These types of problems are unlikely to ever be fully prevented, but I
> > would think that the parade of difficulties in the past few months would
> > also be testing the patience of at least some people inside of WMF who
> > might like to not have a new earthquake to deal with on what seems like a
> > biweekly basis.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 17:59 Yair Rand  wrote:
> >
> > > The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not
> authorized
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under
> Wikipedia's
> > > name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps
> > with
> > > the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while
> > so
> > > we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
> > >
> > > The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most
> > > significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF
> > had
> > > a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a
> > > string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed
> > sections
> > > were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
> > >
> > > I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding
> > KPIs,
> > > but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics
> > of
> > > some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would
> work.
> > > Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than
> 1800
> > > users posting statements in opposition will be considere

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Adrian Raddatz]

I think it's a fine idea. I know that nobody knows what "Wikimedia means",
and see value to moving at least the Foundation's name towards a more
recognizable brand.

I also see valid points being raised from the community, such as the
distinction between Wikipedia and WikiBooks, -Versity, -Source, etc. Those
projects are often very different from Wikipedia, and further work should
be done to understand the impacts on brand perception if those very
different projects use a more similar name. But overall, I think the idea
is good.

What is bad is that this is another top-down change being apparently made
entirely by WMF staff. The question is "how should we implement this idea
that we have already come up with, and will implement anyway"? The question
should have been brought forward much earlier in the form of "how can we
improve our brand awareness". This idea could have been put forward and
refined as part of that collaborative process. Or at least that's how it
should have been done if the WMF cares about being a service organization.

> I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
No need to mock me based on my apparent position on the issue. And I really
don't see how it is desirable that the Foundation is willing to push ideas
through without community support. Again, are they a top-down governance
organization, or a service organization aimed at supporting and empowering
the editing community and readership?

Adrian Raddatz


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:05 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the
> same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to
> so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give
> safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger
> danger than the benefits it causes.
>
>
>
> 2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>):
>
> We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
> the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between
> them.
>
> In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
>
> Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I
> do think this rebranding is important.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu 
> > Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a
> > scris:
> >
> > > Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
> usual
> > > atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
> > > community,
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
> >
> >
> > Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
> > Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
> > is to explain that difference?
> >
> > This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
> > using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
> >
> >
> >
> > > no
> > > assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
> > > consultation.
> >
> >
> > I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > >
> > > You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
> stakeholder
> > > group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
> > > consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
> > your
> > > stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
> > key
> > > community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
> > the
> > > consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
> > into
> > > the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
> > >
> > > It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
> > >
> > > Adrian Raddatz
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate -
> I
> > > > believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
> this
> > > fit
> > > > of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
> > > >
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Adrian Raddatz]

Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
community, no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up, no
assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
consultation.

You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.

It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.

Adrian Raddatz


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I
> believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this fit
> of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
>
> It's one after another, and never stops.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019 à(s)
> 18:25:
>
> > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
> > assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> > > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> > >
> > > Something along the lines of:
> > > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> > > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> > > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> > >
> > > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> > > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> > > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> > > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> > > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > > spent money had impact and "value".
> > >
> > > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> > > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> > > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> > > rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
> dranville-...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Pine.
> > > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > > > proposition.
> > > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that
> > it
> > > is
> > > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it
> is
> > > > sometimes necessary).
> > > > Have other options even been considered?
> > > >
> > > > -speaking in my own name here-
> > > >
> > > > Diane
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Zack,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> > > considerable
> > > > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > > > > movement’s brandi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Adrian Raddatz]

I'm tempted to sit this one out. The Foundation has organized a bunch of
working groups, staffed primarily through volunteers of various types, to
present some strategic recommendations for moving forward into the future.
We are a movement with flaws and opportunities for improvement, as with any
large organization, and it would be a mistake for us to assume that because
we found the winning formula in the early 2000s we are completely set for
the future. But already, the discussions on Meta are dominated by
representatives of The Community™ showing up with all of the usual toxic
vested contributor behaviour that I've grown to know and love in my time
with this movement.

That said, it is apparent how broken the community/WMF governance model is.
Large portions of the community feel disenfranchised on the projects they
helped to create, and the WMF is increasingly separate from the community
in terms of its goals and priorities. I think that re-imagining the
governance of this movement is going to be the first step towards making
any sort of progress towards the goals of either group.

Adrian


On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:54 AM Yury Bulka 
wrote:

> Maybe it is better to discuss specific recommendations on their talk
> pages?
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
>
> We might find ourselves discussing here only one specific recommendation
> while the other working groups' recommendations might fade in shadows of
> this particular discussion.
>
>
>
> Philip Kopetzky  writes:
>
> > Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> You're
> > the only one telling people to shut up here.
> >
> > And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> incorporate
> > indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> > licensing scheme?
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Adrian Raddatz]

Defining the problem and solutions is easy too. Getting the core editing
community to agree to any change is the difficult part.

Problems:
- Discussions favour the loudest voice and the people who refuse to walk
away. Wiki people often say that there are no barriers to participation,
but if you have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane
article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes
undesirable very quickly.
- Admins are often some of the worst offenders.
- ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.

For solutions:
- Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not
they are correct.
- And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we
can change or amend things if they don't work.

Adrian Raddatz


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Wikimedia Space: A space for movement news and conversations

[Adrian Raddatz]

Yes, like Samuel I'm excited to see some experimentation with alternative
(and hopefully better) mediums for community engagement.

Adrian Raddatz


On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:05 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I love the idea of experimenting like this.
> More like this please.  The simpler and lighter weight experiments can be
> (w little drama ;) the more of possibility space we can explore.
>
> And that's a space we should all be excited by.
>
> On Wed., Jun. 26, 2019, 12:47 p.m. Quim Gil,  wrote:
>
> > Hi, thank you for your feedback about Wikimedia Space.
> >
> > So far, there have been many comments focusing on _who_ has released
> _what_
> > and _how_. Let me tell you _why_ we are proposing Wikimedia Space. People
> > agreeing on _why_ can agree on the rest way easier.
> >
> > Wikimedia Space is all about Wikimedia growth. If you are supporting
> > newcomers or you are contributing to the growth of the Wikimedia movement
> > in other ways, we are very interested in your opinions, your suggestions,
> > your needs. And we are especially interested in hearing from you if you
> are
> > a promoter of movement diversity and/or part of any kind of group
> > underrepresented in Wikimedia.
> >
> > Why Wikimedia Space, in more detail:
> >
> > From the Wikimedia movement strategic direction -
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> >
> > * Knowledge equity
> >
> >
> > From the Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan -
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
> >
> > * Grow participation globally, focusing on emerging markets
> > * Thriving movement
> > * Support to newcomers
> > * Strong, diverse, and innovative communities that represent the World
> > * Strong and empowered movement leaders and affiliates
> > * Safe, secure spaces and equitable, efficient processes for all
> > participants
> >
> > I hope this explains our _why_. About some of the points mentioned...
> >
> > Wikimedia Space is a proposal to the movement in the form of a prototype
> > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/what-do-mean-here-by-prototype/188/4
> .
> > We believe it will generate interest, feedback, criticism and
> contributions
> > in a number of ways that a text-only proposal in (say) Meta Wiki wouldn't
> > achieve.
> >
> > For instance, while we discuss here in a black & white and text-only
> > environment, more than 60 colorful users have signed up already and
> > Wikimedia Space and are getting their own impressions about it.
> > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/u .
> >
> > Or for instance, several event organizers just signed up and added their
> > event to the Wikimedia Space map, which, if you ask me, after just one
> day
> > already looks fresh, beautiful and interesting:
> > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
> >
> > We are happy to discuss possibilities for connection / integration /
> > migration between Wikimedia Space and existing community channels. As a
> > matter of fact, wikimedia-l could potentially benefit from the features
> > offered by Wikimedia Space (a conversation started in this list by
> > volunteers years ago):
> >
> >
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/integrating-mailing-lists-to-wikimedia-space/136
> >
> > Wikimedia Space doesn't prevent improvements in Meta or other places. If
> > anything, we believe it will become an incentive for improvements in all
> > community channels willing to keep up. In our opinion, potential
> > improvements in Meta shouldn't prevent the release of Wikimedia Space.
> What
> > you see today is the result of about three weeks of part time work by
> four
> > people. Now consider how much time would it take to discuss, agree,
> > resource and implement an equivalent feature set in MediaWiki, and (just
> as
> > important) equivalent social expectations and norms in the Meta
> community.
> >
> > We are just starting to promote Wikimedia Space. Yesterday we did an
> > initial announcement to get a first wave of users, see how the prototype
> > would take hold, and gauge the initial response. We plan to continue
> > promoting Wikimedia Space in more channels. In fact, you can help. If
> there
> > is a channel missing, please point to its URL, or (even better) feel free
> > to forward the announcement yourself.
> >
> > If you have found an actionable problem, we welcome bug reports and
> feature
> > requests: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/space/
> >
> > We encou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '17 - Scholarships, Registration, Submissions

[Adrian Raddatz]

You must have received faulty information. The recipients have always been
revealed, at least in past years.

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <
pavan...@vishvakannada.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Long back when I asked for list of scholarship awardees, with their
> usernames, someone answered saying that the usernames of scholarship
> awardees can’t be disclosed. How come they have been disclosed now?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pavanaja
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Wikimania-l [mailto:wikimania-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ellie Young
> *Sent:* 17 May 2017 12:49 AM
> *To:* Wikimania general list (open subscription); Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '17 - Scholarships,
> Registration, Submissions
>
>
>
> Here's an update on various activities pertaining to our the upcoming
> Wikimania '17 which is being held August 9-13 in Montréal, Québec, Canada.
>
>
>
> WMF Scholarship Program:  110 people were offered and subsequently
> accepted a full or partial scholarship to attend.  The awardees are listed
> by user names and the list is posted here:
>
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars
>
>
>
> Submissions:  The program committee has just finished it's review and
> deliberations.  Rejections and acceptance emails are going out this week
> and next.  We expect to post the program by the end of this month.
>
>
>
> Registration and accommodation information is now up for everyone at:
>
>
>
> https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration
>
> https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Accommodation
>
>
>
> If you are a scholarship or other WMF funded attendee (staff, contractor,
> board, etc), please wait until you hear from the WMF with your registration
> and accommodation instructions.
>
>
>
> If you have any questions about the conference, please email
> wikimania-i...@wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> Please spread the word
>
>
>
> Thanks, Ellie
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ellie Young
>
> Events Manager
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> eyo...@wikimedia.org
>
> ​
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updates regarding the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

[Adrian Raddatz]

I definitely did not have an important role in the process, nor does any
one person on ElectCom have as important a role as the returning officer in
an electoral district. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that your usual
MO of presenting ideas that only you care about is, yet again, unhelpful
here. Members of the ElectCom aren't going to sneak by the requirement to
not run for the board seat because they don't need to reveal their real
name. It's not that any of us are concerned with the potential risks of our
name being associated with the Foundation, it's that there is no need to.
All of our volunteers are able to contribute without revealing their real
name. Even OTRS volunteers can use a pseudonym. Add to that Nataliia's
concern of potential harm of identification in some countries and there is
truly no need for this.

In my opinion, you would have significantly less accountability if ElectCom
members operated under their real names instead of their on-wiki usernames.
At least this way you can look into the people on the Committee. Otherwise,
you'd just have a name, and no other information associated with it.

I won't be responding any more to this pet issue of yours. If there are
actual concerns from the Wikimedia community over this that haven't been
raised in the last decade, then people will raise them. But you're going to
need to do better than suggest some abstract improvement in transparency
and accountability.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nataliia,
>
> Thanks for your prompt response.  You have made your decision, and if you
> have solicited applications for the Committee on the basis that the members
> may remain pseudonymous, then I would not expect you to resile from that.
> However for the next round perhaps you may wish to reconsider your policy
> in the light of two points.
>
> Firstly, I am not suggesting that members of the Committee be required to
> link their real names and Wikimedia handles.  I am suggesting that they be
> required to act under their real names.  This allows a transparent exercise
> of their powers to, for example, bar candidates from standing for
> nomination to the Board, and make it clear to the community in general and
> the potential candidates in particular, where they might have a conflict of
> interest.  If a potential member of the Election Committee canot take the
> risk of associating their name with the Foundation for fear of reprisals,
> then that is regrettable, but the same would be true if they wished to
> stand for the Board.  There must be a balance between transparency and
> getting the best candidates and in this case I suggest that you have struck
> the balance in the wrong place.
>
> Secondly, it has been claimed by Adrian that there is no need for this, as
> he has been involved in government elections and has never been required to
> disclose his name to the electors.  I do not know which government he is
> referring to, or how important a role he had in the election process, but
> in the stable mature democracy where I live, the members of the electoral
> commission are publicly named, the returning officers with responsibility
> for conducting the elections are named (and are usually elected officials),
> the count is conducted in a public forum, often televised, to which the
> candidates have right of access, and the returning officers announce the
> results in public, explicitly giving their names as part of the
> announcement.I think that you can afford to be as transparent as that.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Rogol, hello all,
> >
> > Frankly speaking, I have not personally seen your question on the talk
> page
> > of the Committee. And my announcement followed the example of the first
> > announcement from 2016 [1], mentioning the usernames, not names of real
> > people. So I actually did not know this is even an issue. As Ajraddatz (a
> > current and former member of the committee) said in response to your talk
> > page message this is also the norm for most of our community committees
> > [2].
> >
> > The real names are disclosed to Wikimedia Foundation, as these people
> must
> > sign confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information [3]. I do not
> > think that the disclosure of real names publicly should be a requirement,
> > though it should be an option. Please consider that: some volunteers may
> > come from countries where it is a really bad idea to reveal the
> connection
> > between your real name and your username.
> >
> > As for a short description of the members: Wikimedia projects give a rare
> > possi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updates regarding the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

[Adrian Raddatz]

Still absolutely no need to do this as a requirement.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nataliiya,
>
> Thank you for that information.  It seems that you are happy to introduce
> the new members of this Committee to the community under pseudonyms.  I
> suggested at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_
> Foundation_elections_committee
> back in July 2016 that, considering that this Committee is functioning in
> the real world, putting forward real people for real positions on a real
> body which is responsible for spending real money, transparency would
> benefit from their doing so under their real names.  If a question of
> conflict of interest arises, for example, it would be all but impossible to
> resolve if the real identity of the individual in question were not
> available for scrutiny by the community.
>
> Please publish the real names and a short description of each of the
> members of this Committee.
>
> "Rogol"
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee has been joined by two new
> > members, Masssly and Matanya. They were appointed by the Board Governance
> > Committee at the recommendation of the current Elections Committee
> members
> > following an open call for additional members earlier this year [1].
> >
> > They have each been appointed for two-year terms, in accordance with the
> > new setup for the standing Elections Committee. The now 8-member
> volunteer
> > committee is tasked by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to
> > facilitate the elections for the Board of Trustees and Funds
> Dissemination
> > Committee [2].
> >
> > Additionally, the committee has selected KTC to serve as its chair for
> the
> > upcoming year. As we prepare for an upcoming election, we have also
> changed
> > the Board Liaison from Dariusz to myself, and asked Tim Moritz Hector
> from
> > the Board Governance Committee to serve as an additional advisor to the
> > committee.
> >
> > The upcoming process for both the Board and Funds Dissemination Committee
> > elections will begin soon and run through June. There will be more
> > information coming from the committee on the timeline and nomination
> > process in the coming days.
> >
> > Please join me in welcoming, congratulating, and thanking Massly,
> Matanya,
> > KTC and Tim!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > February/086239.html
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > elections_committee
> >
> >
> > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> working
> > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> > advance!*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Adrian Raddatz]

Agreed as well. Anders, that is one of the most sensible posts I've seen on
this list in a long time.

Adrian Raddatz

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Agreed,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: Monday, 06 March 2017 9:21 PM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?
>
> We have 61000 editors  that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800
> making more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500
> voters. These figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community.
>
> The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal
> participations in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor)
> are at best 100-200.
>
> I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the
> community or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach
> being made by WMF in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out to
> a broader audience then these 100-200
>
> So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the
> community and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the dialogue
> in itself. But I do see that the approach being taken by WMF now and lately
> does a lot to resolve this issue and and is worth both praise and support
>
> And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this
> list
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:
> > Gerard
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:
> >
> >> For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
> >> support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or
> >> is their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us
> >> stick in the mud as it stifles initiative?
> >>
> > A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
> > establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
> > Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
> > strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
> > deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
> > think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14066 - Release Date: 03/06/17
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Adrian Raddatz]

A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
the discussion.

Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.

On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
> do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
> on the same page.
>
> Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
> confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
> multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
> made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
> of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> employee in the same discussion.
>
> Fae
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
> You
> > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
> > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> > curtious.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> >> publishing personal views?
> >>
> >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
> >>
> >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> >> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> >> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
> >>
> >> Links
> >> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> >> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_
> and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> >> same_consensus_building_discussion
> >> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> >> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#
> Legitimate_uses
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Adrian Raddatz]

Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here. You
could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
curtious.

On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> publishing personal views?
>
> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
>
> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
>
> Links
> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> same_consensus_building_discussion
> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Adrian Raddatz]

In terms of substantive concerns, the ArbCom model is what most non-staff
commenters seem to be caught up on. I'm personally concerned with any
creation of a dispute resolution "class" of editor, since I feel that the
community does a terrible job of mob resolution at places like ANI on
enwiki, or RfC on meta. The less you can exclusively resolve disputes
on-wiki, the better.

And this proposal for an ArbCom is perhaps the most bureaucratic and
expansive one I've ever seen. A regular and supplementary committee? And
one which hears all cases, rather than just appeals? This sounds like a
perfect recipe for diffusing responsibility for blocks/bans and that's not
a good thing. The benefit to individual admins (and whatever the equivalent
is on phab) making decisions about blocks is that you know who did it and
how to appeal it. That's a lot harder when it was done because of a 3-2
vote on some strange committee that will be hard for newcomers or
occasional users to understand the composition of.

Replace the enforcement section with authority for admins (and equivalent)
to add sanctions as they see fit, but with some sort of formal appeal
option like asking another admin, or a small and randomly selected group of
them, or a small and randomly selected group of others.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing that Rachel Nabors post, David; bookmarked. I think
> some on this list are missing the point that codes of conduct are necessary
> to help provide a welcoming and safer environment for marginalized people,
> including the neuroatypical that Tim refers to (somewhat disparagingly). It
> isn't about virtual signaling or earning social justice cred; it's about
> addressing some of the legitimate concerns and fears that prevent people
> including women (of all races), people of color (of all genders), LGBT+
> people, and others from participating fully in spaces and events.
>
> - Pax aka Funcrunch
>
>
> On 2/26/17 9:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 26 February 2017 at 17:49, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Eh, they do and that is one of the reasons to oppose the
>>> Code of Conduct.  Its draft implicitly alleges that the
>>> technical spaces currently are a cesspit that is in urgent
>>> need of someone with a rake while protecting actual offend-
>>> ers by granting immunity to "neuroatypical" behaviour.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is a pretty reasonable presumption regarding technical spaces: if
>> you *don't* have a code of conduct, it's a reasonable conclusion from
>> outside that there will be serious unacknowledged problems.
>>
>> e.g. "You literally cannot pay me to speak without a Code of Conduct"
>> http://rachelnabors.com/2015/09/01/code-of-conduct/
>>
>> This is literally all well-worn discourse territory, but I'm sure if
>> you both persist you can wear everyone down.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> --
> Pax Ahimsa Gethen | http://funcrunch.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Adrian Raddatz]

WMF staff are certainly contributors within the technical spaces. There's
no reason why they shouldn't be able to participate in the COC formation
process (which I have unrelated concerns with...)

A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack
of advertising, and half on a lack of interest.

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, quiddity <pandiculat...@gmail.com> wrote:

> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the
> communities.
> * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
> only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
> involved, are part of the communities.
> * It is illogical for us to tell the people who take on highly-active
> roles, that they are no longer able to lead.
> * We (collectively) try to encourage the extremely capable volunteers to
> apply for jobs, and for grants.
> * If Wikimedia Cascadia becomes a well-funded chapter, and you were a
> staffer of it, would you become ineligible to lead proposals that effect
> your area of activity?
>
> --
> quiddity
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
> > aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
> > questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
> > terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
> > like to see -- and I think that the proposal would be more likely to pass
> > an RfC on adoption for the whole document -- community leadership of the
> > process, and a greater proportion of community input.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> > ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made
> some
> > > > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far
> > less
> > > > WMF involvement with the draft
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
> > > participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job
> to
> > > do so) not be involved?
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Adrian Raddatz]

I don't lack faith in the community, I just recognize that not everything
needs to be dealt with by us. Building an encyclopedia and dealing with
these sensitive cases are very different things, and community volunteers
lack both the resources and the responsibility to deal with them.
Volunteers with the most advanced permissions on the site only need to sign
an agreement - the WMF doesn't know who they are, and there is no way to
hold them accountable for properly using the information they have access
to beyond removing their access. Staff, on the other hand, are known and
can have legal action taken against them beyond their termination in cases
of abuse. Simple as that.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> AJ,
>
> > "Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something
> doesn't
> > mean that they should be."
>
> Can you clarify that, please?
>
> > "Again, the difference here is between these
> > sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally
> accountable
> > professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best."
>
> I am puzzled by your lack of faith in the quality of work of our peers
> in the community. Why be so negative? We have produced Wikipedia;
> surely that is evidence that volunteers can be highly capable.
>
> Certainly not all volunteers are, of course, and some of them end up
> banned for good reason. But in general, I think there is good
> reason to have faith in our peers.
>
> I'm not sure how volunteers are not "legally accountable"; perhaps you
> could clarify that point.
>
> > How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in
> > here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?
>
> I agree with you that a good use of WMF funds is to pay staff to work on
> investigations and enforcement. This can be done in such a way that
> there is always some kind of community element in a decision-maker role
> regarding whether to ban a member of the community.
>
> In addition to staff resources, I would like to see WMF put more effort
> into
> expanding the population of the volunteer community, particularly long-term
> volunteers who gain sufficient knowledge and experience to serve in
> higher-skill roles such as CU/OS, technical development, outreach to
> GLAM+STEM organizations, and mentorship of new Wikimedians.
>
> > You say that the current
> > system is broken, because... why?
>
> I say that the current system is inappropriate (not broken) because
> WMF should not be making decisions about who is banned from the community.
> The purpose of WMF is to serve and nurture the community, not to rule it.
>
> > The community doesn't deal with it?
> > That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with this
> stuff.
> > It's a blessing, not a curse.
>
> I agree that having staff involved in investigations and enforcement is a
> good thing.
> But as I said, I find it inappropriate and unwise for WMF to (1) have a
> largely opaque
> process for making these decisions and (2) exclude the community from
> the decision-making process.
>
> > It might be worth explaining some more of the
> > bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears that
> it's
> > just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I think that global bans are reasonable options in some cases. In terms of
> quantity, I would like to see more of them and to see bans initiated more
> quickly, such as against undisclosed COI editors who violate the terms of
> service.
> I would also like to see better technical tools for enforcing bans. But I
> want the
> community, in some fashion (probably through some kind of committee, as
> has been suggested elsewhere in this thread) to make the decision about
> whether to impose a global ban, in consultation with WMF.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Adrian Raddatz]

Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something doesn't
mean that they should be. Again, the difference here is between these
sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally accountable
professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best. These cases take
weeks or months to build, and that's with full-time staff working on them.
How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in
here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

Sorry, but your comments seem quite out of touch. You say that the current
system is broken, because... why? The community doesn't deal with it?
That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with this stuff.
It's a blessing, not a curse. It might be worth explaining some more of the
bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears that it's
just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like.

As to the appeals process proposed above, that is not useful either in my
opinion. Nor is there any relation between being a bureaucrat, AffCom
member, etc. and having the time, knowledge, and competence to deal with
these cases.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As compared to the current system, I'd be much more comfortable with a
> hybrid model, where WMF and community representatives share authority for
> making a global ban decision.
>
> We have plenty of cases already where community members review highly
> sensitive evidence and make administrative decisions based on that
> evidence. I would disagree with a notion that community members who have
> passed a reasonable community vetting process are untrustworthy or
> incompetent by default (there is ample evidence to the contrary), and that
> WMF employees are always super-humanly trustworthy and competent by virtue
> of their office (remember the previous WMF executive director?). Also note
> that people with good intentions sometimes make mistakes, and that
> groupthink can be a serious problem. All of these factors should be taken
> into consideration when designing a system for global bans.
>
> I don't expect to come up with a system that is 100% transparent (I don't
> think that would be legal in some cases), 100% run by the community (that
> would put too much of a burden on already overworked volunteers), and 100%
> reliable (which is unrealistic). But I'm sure that we can design a system
> that is much better than the one that we have today.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Adrian Raddatz]

I'm not convinced of the problem. The WMF global bans are designed to step
in where community processes would not be appropriate. From their page on
Meta: "global bans are carried out ... to address multi-project misconduct,
to help ensure the trust and safety of the users of all Wikimedia sites, or
to assist in preventing prohibited behavior". The last two reasons should
not be dealt with by the community; our volunteers do not have the
resources, qualifications, or liability required to deal with them. But
perhaps "multi-project misconduct" could be handled by the WMF differently.
Instead of imposing a WMF ban, they could build a case for a community ban,
and follow that process instead. As I said though, I'm not convinced that
there is a problem with how things are done currently. Some things
shouldn't be handled by community governance.

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with
> community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that
> is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is free
> from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a
> grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility
> with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A", but
> I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community
> governance.
>
>
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such
> > metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most
> > part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you
> > have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without
> comment
> > are going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
> > ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd
> that
> > seems to dominate this list in a fuss.
> >
> > It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global
> > bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with
> disclosure,
> > it's with mass disclosure.
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple
> > > people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community
> > > involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the
> > US
> > > we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions
> > > about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a
> > trial
> > > by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> > > (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it
> > is
> > > both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> > > decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in
> the
> > > process.
> > >
> > > I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> > > enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have
> > been
> > > made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose
> > letting
> > > "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/G

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Adrian Raddatz]

Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such
metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most
part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you
have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without comment
are going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd that
seems to dominate this list in a fuss.

It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global
bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with disclosure,
it's with mass disclosure.

On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple
> people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community
> involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the US
> we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions
> about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a trial
> by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it is
> both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the
> process.
>
> I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have been
> made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose letting
> "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Adrian Raddatz]

Not for any wiki; only Meta had wmf staff with admin rights, and only for
use within their specific work-related areas.

I am totally unconcerned with WMF staff having the necessary permissions to
do their job. They can easily be held accountable as paid employees.

On Feb 14, 2017 11:53 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
> narrow column so hard to read.
>
> Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
> JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
> August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
> October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
> was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
> November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
> please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
> understand?
>
> Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
> rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.
>
> Fae
>
> On 14 February 2017 at 17:48, Pine W  wrote:
> > I'm curious about what is meant by "advanced permissions" here. If that
> > refers to translation administrator permissions, I have fewer concerns
> > about that than I would about admin or CU/OS permissions.
> >
> > In general, I'm wary of WMF encroachment on Meta. Placing resources on
> Meta
> > that the community will use is fine and good, but WMF taking unilateral
> > actions that circumvent community processes may be inappropriate. For
> that
> > reason, I would like to see most requests for WMF accounts to get
> > permissions of admin or higher for community wikis go through the same
> > community vetting process as community members do.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> The WMF grants special rights to employees on a case-by-case basis,
> >> by-passing the normal community driven process to grant admin,
> >> developer and other rights. A few years ago the WMF officially
> >> committed to making this process transparent, and maintains a public
> >> Google Spreadsheet [1] so that anyone can check exactly when rights
> >> are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
> >> Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
> >> Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.
> >>
> >> Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
> >> have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons why
> >> special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
> >> explain why, or restore the use cases to public view?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2017 Wikimania Scholarships

[Adrian Raddatz]

Hi Fae,

The en-gb translation (we needed one of those?) was out of date. It has
since been fixed.

Thanks,

On Feb 14, 2017 8:00 AM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Screenshot sent off list. If applicants have been going to different
> pages, depending on which browser they are in, they may have
> difficulty in resubmitting, or making an initial application before
> the deadline of Monday.
>
> Testing the same link inside Firefox rather than Chrome, takes me to
> the 2017 page which looks correct; so I guess that could be a
> recommended fix.
>
> Fae
>
> On 14 February 2017 at 15:48, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > When you say "designed for 2016 Wikimania" what do you mean?
> >
> > Going through both of those for me seem to send me to a form referencing
> > 2017.
> >
> > Do you have a screenshot of what you are seeing?
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The link given in the email (https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply)
> >> and the same link given at
> >> https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships send the
> >> applicant to a form designed for applications for the 2016 Wikimania.
> >> Is this intentional or are applicants using this form going to be
> >> automatically rejected?
> >>
> >> Fae
> >>
> >> On 10 February 2017 at 01:57, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Just a reminder that scholarship applications for Wikimania 2017
> which is
> >> > being held in Montréal, Canada on August 9–13, 2017 are now being
> >> accepted.
> >> > Applications are open until Monday, 20 February 2017 23:59 UTC.
> >> >
> >> > Applicants will be able to apply for a partial or full scholarship. A
> >> full
> >> > scholarship will cover the cost of an individual's round-trip travel,
> >> > shared accommodation, and conference registration fees as arranged by
> the
> >> > Wikimedia Foundation. A partial scholarship will cover conference
> >> > registration fees and shared accommodation.
> >> >
> >> > Applicants will be rated using a pre-determined selection process and
> >> > selection criteria established by the Scholarship Committee and the
> >> > Wikimedia Foundation, who will determine which applications are
> >> successful.
> >> >
> >> > To learn more about Wikimania 2017 scholarships, please visit:
> >> > https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships
> >> >
> >> > To apply for a scholarship, fill out the multi-language application
> form
> >> > on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply
> >> >
> >> > It is highly recommended that applicants review all the material on
> the
> >> > Scholarships page and the associated FAQ (
> https://wikimania2017.wikime
> >> > dia.org/wiki/Scholarships/FAQ ) before submitting an application.
> >> >
> >> > If you have any questions, please contact:
> >> >  >> > <wikimania-scholarsh...@wikimedia.org>>
> >> > or leave a message at:
> >> > https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scholarships
> >> >
> >> > Please help us spread the word!
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > Adrian Raddatz
> >> > for the Scholarship Committee
> >> > https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarship_committee
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> &g

[Wikimedia-l] 2017 Wikimania Scholarships

[Adrian Raddatz]

Hi all,

Just a reminder that scholarship applications for Wikimania 2017 which is
being held in Montréal, Canada on August 9–13, 2017 are now being accepted.
Applications are open until Monday, 20 February 2017 23:59 UTC.

Applicants will be able to apply for a partial or full scholarship. A full
scholarship will cover the cost of an individual's round-trip travel,
shared accommodation, and conference registration fees as arranged by the
Wikimedia Foundation. A partial scholarship will cover conference
registration fees and shared accommodation.

Applicants will be rated using a pre-determined selection process and
selection criteria established by the Scholarship Committee and the
Wikimedia Foundation, who will determine which applications are successful.

To learn more about Wikimania 2017 scholarships, please visit:
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships

To apply for a scholarship, fill out the multi-language application form
on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply

It is highly recommended that applicants review all the material on the
Scholarships page and the associated FAQ ( https://wikimania2017.wikime
dia.org/wiki/Scholarships/FAQ ) before submitting an application.

If you have any questions, please contact:
>
or leave a message at:
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scholarships

Please help us spread the word!

Best regards,

Adrian Raddatz
for the Scholarship Committee
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarship_committee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Discussion about proposed Technical Code of Conduct (TCC)

[Adrian Raddatz]

I quite like the Phabricator guidelines. Can't those just be replicated to
apply to all technical spaces? No more years of debate needed, or new
arbcoms, or strange statements of principles, or exhaustive lists of
inappropriate behaviour.

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> +1
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris Koerner
> Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016 5:52 PM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Discussion about proposed Technical Code of
> Conduct (TCC)
>
> I'm speaking as a volunteer, not as WMF staff, if that matters to you.
>
> Adrian Raddatz wrote:
> > It should be pretty darn easy to make a policy on user interactions
> > within technical spaces. There is certainly a practice which is
> > already followed, so just codify it and call it a guideline or a
> > generally accepted
> document.
> > I would certainly support a page that people can read to find our
> > expectations for interactions, and what happens if you're naughty.
>
> That's what a Code of Conduct is. :)
>
> It would be wonderful if it were as easy as you describe, but it hasn't
> proven to be.
>
> It's taking longer because the WMF/Board did not initially take the
> approach of applying this 'top-down' style to the technical spaces.Those of
> us who have been involved (some, like myself before we became staff) want
> to do it with community involvement and with thoughtful discussion. Are we
> going to get it right the first time around? No, maybe not. Are we trying
> to design something with thoughtfulness and flexibility? Yes.
>
> MZMcBride wrote:
> > And if we disregard any application of common sense, then yes, you
> > could argue that a technical code of conduct is needed.
>
> One could also argue that a disregard for common sense is exactly what
> permits individuals to violate our shared expectations of community
> behavior.
>
> Yours,
> Chris Koerner
> clkoerner.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13447 - Release Date: 11/21/16
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Discussion about proposed Technical Code of Conduct (TCC)

[Adrian Raddatz]

So, are we unable to enforce these things currently? If someone comments on
a Phabricator task that user X is a big meanyface, are we unable to act
currently because there's no code of conduct so how could they have known
otherwise?

It should be pretty darn easy to make a policy on user interactions within
technical spaces. There is certainly a practice which is already followed,
so just codify it and call it a guideline or a generally accepted document.
I would certainly support a page that people can read to find our
expectations for interactions, and what happens if you're naughty. Instead,
it has been months (years?) of debate over wording and enforcement, when
there has been no demonstrated deficiency in how we currently deal with it.
Except of course the technical limitations, which they could have been
spending this time/money on fixing.

Also, I think I misread your first comment. I'm sorry for referencing it in
my comment then; I wasn't trying to "mould" your opinion to support my own.

Adrian Raddatz

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think they want a code of conduct as a background to any kind of
> enforcement, which sounds fairly legit.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-11-21 2:33 GMT+01:00 Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Oh, and similar to WereSpielChequers, I agree that better enforcement
> > methods would be far more useful than spending staff time and money
> > worrying about the codes of conduct. I understand that they are all the
> > rage on the west coast of the US these days, but it's not going to help
> us
> > finally stop someone who is using proxies to create more accounts to
> harass
> > someone. It's not hard to see that with access to proxies and mobile IP
> > ranges, someone can engage in sockpuppetry and abuse of our wikis
> > indefinitely.
> >
> > The WMF has made progress on this recently, but there is still nothing to
> > deter someone from engaging in prolonged campaigns of on-wiki harassment
> > using sockpuppets. Maybe it's time to think about a more strict
> account-->
> > operator connection, such as requiring email addresses on new account
> > creations and a method of checking accounts by email.
> >
> > Adrian Raddatz
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Similar to Vito, the safe space/code of conduct crowd has never
> > > demonstrated that any of these principles are not already held and
> > enforced
> > > across our projects.
> > >
> > > Adrian Raddatz
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Same here, ofc.
> > >> I still cannot understand how there could be online communities
> refusing
> > >> these very basic principles.
> > >>
> > >> Vito
> > >>
> > >> 2016-11-21 0:57 GMT+01:00 Alex Monk <kren...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> > On 20 November 2016 at 13:35, Jonathan Cardy <
> > >> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The nastiest trolling, personal attacks and certainly the rape and
> > >> murder
> > >> > > threats will get people blocked anywhere in the movement except
> > maybe,
> > >> > > definitely in the past but hopefully not today, on IRC.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > I would kick+block people doing that sort of thing in the IRC
> channels
> > >> in
> > >> > which I am an op (e.g. #mediawiki, #wikimedia-labs and various minor
> > >> ones).
> > >> > I would be shocked to see ops of other channels willingly ignoring
> > that.
> > >> > ___
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > >> >
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://li

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Discussion about proposed Technical Code of Conduct (TCC)

[Adrian Raddatz]

Oh, and similar to WereSpielChequers, I agree that better enforcement
methods would be far more useful than spending staff time and money
worrying about the codes of conduct. I understand that they are all the
rage on the west coast of the US these days, but it's not going to help us
finally stop someone who is using proxies to create more accounts to harass
someone. It's not hard to see that with access to proxies and mobile IP
ranges, someone can engage in sockpuppetry and abuse of our wikis
indefinitely.

The WMF has made progress on this recently, but there is still nothing to
deter someone from engaging in prolonged campaigns of on-wiki harassment
using sockpuppets. Maybe it's time to think about a more strict account-->
operator connection, such as requiring email addresses on new account
creations and a method of checking accounts by email.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Similar to Vito, the safe space/code of conduct crowd has never
> demonstrated that any of these principles are not already held and enforced
> across our projects.
>
> Adrian Raddatz
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Same here, ofc.
>> I still cannot understand how there could be online communities refusing
>> these very basic principles.
>>
>> Vito
>>
>> 2016-11-21 0:57 GMT+01:00 Alex Monk <kren...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > On 20 November 2016 at 13:35, Jonathan Cardy <
>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The nastiest trolling, personal attacks and certainly the rape and
>> murder
>> > > threats will get people blocked anywhere in the movement except maybe,
>> > > definitely in the past but hopefully not today, on IRC.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I would kick+block people doing that sort of thing in the IRC channels
>> in
>> > which I am an op (e.g. #mediawiki, #wikimedia-labs and various minor
>> ones).
>> > I would be shocked to see ops of other channels willingly ignoring that.
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Discussion about proposed Technical Code of Conduct (TCC)

[Adrian Raddatz]

Similar to Vito, the safe space/code of conduct crowd has never
demonstrated that any of these principles are not already held and enforced
across our projects.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Same here, ofc.
> I still cannot understand how there could be online communities refusing
> these very basic principles.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-11-21 0:57 GMT+01:00 Alex Monk <kren...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On 20 November 2016 at 13:35, Jonathan Cardy <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The nastiest trolling, personal attacks and certainly the rape and
> murder
> > > threats will get people blocked anywhere in the movement except maybe,
> > > definitely in the past but hopefully not today, on IRC.
> > >
> >
> > I would kick+block people doing that sort of thing in the IRC channels in
> > which I am an op (e.g. #mediawiki, #wikimedia-labs and various minor
> ones).
> > I would be shocked to see ops of other channels willingly ignoring that.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee

[Adrian Raddatz]

Hi all,

Just to let you know, User:KTC has been selected as the new interim chair
of the elections committee. A permanent chair will be selected once all
advisers and members are in place.

This change has been reflected at <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee>.

Regards,

Adrian Raddatz

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am also curious whether the committee members (and by extension the WMF
> > staff and Board liaisons) have undertaken to not run in the next
> election.
> > Given that the Committee is tasked with reviewing and potentially
> modifying
> > the rules under which future elections will be held, such a public
> > confirmation would prevent the perception of conflict of interest.
> >
> >
> I can answer the one about myself: within the Board we have agreed that the
> matters pertaining to community elections will be dealt with by Nataliia,
> as I have not made a decision about not running yet.
>
> I do hope, however,  that I will be able to cooperate with the Election
> Committee on topics such as a more general restructuring of the Board.
>
> best,
>
> dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

[Adrian Raddatz]

Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for
all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Asaf Bartov <abar...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Thanks for the input, folks.
>
> So, it looks as though there's a preference for keeping it off-list, at
> least until a moderation decision is made, and possibly thereafter too.  I
> shall proceed in that way.
>
> For the record, following Dariusz's remark, I will point out that that is
> *not* how we do it on-wiki; on-wiki, all negotiations of users' behavior is
> done publicly and on the record (albeit with usernames rather than the real
> names most of us use here).
>
> Cheers,
>
>A.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
>
> > As a reader I would also appreciate it to happen in private. I trust the
> > admins to make a sane decision, and if things go berzerk and they make a
> > string of bad decisions, I trust it'll come up on the list then.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2016-07-26 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Symonds <
> > richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
> > >:
> >
> > > Generally, it is better to discuss it privately with the list admins.
> > This
> > > prevents the worst side of mailing lists: a one-sided dogpile on an
> > > individual, who, disruptive or not, should get a fair hearing by the
> > > person(s) whose job it is to moderate.
> > >
> > > Richard Symonds
> > > Wikimedia UK
> > > 0207 065 0992
> > >
> > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> and
> > > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> Registered
> > > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> > 4LT.
> > > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
> (who
> > > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> > >
> > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> control
> > > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> > >
> > > On 26 July 2016 at 15:14, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was on a very active music mailing list for over 10 years and I
> was
> > > > > grateful it was not moderated. Moderation can inhibit discussion,
> > even
> > > > when
> > > > > there are disruptors, and it also requires moderators donate a lot
> of
> > > > > volunteer hours. Which I think within the Wikimedia family
> community
> > is
> > > > > already being required of many of us. So I would vote against
> > > moderation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If an argument / shift was towards moderation, maybe it could be
> > based
> > > on
> > > > > edit count and/or contributions? But that seems a bit extreme and
> > > awful.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Erika
> > > > >
> > > > > *Erika Herzog*
> > > > > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle
> > > > >*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We need moderators to manage spam if for no other reason, and it has
> > been
> > > > helpful in many cases in the 8-9 years I have been subscribed to this
> > > list
> > > > to inhibit disruption and encourage civil exchange. We also have a
> > "soft
> > > > limit" of 30 posts per month that has rarely needed to be enforced
> but
> > is
> > > > still technically on the books.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Adrian Raddatz]

Many volunteer organisations have mandatory training for volunteers, so
that in itself is not a bad idea. But what about the cross-project
differences that Risker brings up?

And more importantly, how could such training help when faced with the type
of harassment that is referenced 99% of the time here - block or lock
evasion after the system has already worked? Training would be a single
sentence: "rinse and repeat the block/hide process until they decide to
stop."

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
> validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
> lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
> they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
> blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
> Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
> who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
> harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only not
> a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
> interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
> aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
> not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is a
> much more visible concern.
>
> There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for any
> administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one set
> up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
> that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
> administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped, over
> the objections of their community?
>
> I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a formal
> global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary widely,
> and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
> very different.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work
> for
> > all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
> > permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
> > should be mandatory.
> >
> > Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
> > functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
> > for doing some types of work.
> >
> > Sydney
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > Wiki Project Med Foundation
> > WikiWomen's User Group
> > Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sydney,
> > >
> > > Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding
> > making
> > > the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
> > > after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
> > > refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
> > > helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required
> > annual
> > > training.
> > >
> > > I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
> > > other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
> > > ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who
> have
> > > demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will
> be
> > > required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping
> their
> > > admin permissions.
> > >
> > > My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
> > > interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
> > > *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it.
> Big
> > > carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training
> develops
> > a
> > > track record of success.
> > >
> > > I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
> > > feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it
> helpful,
> > > and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
> > > administrators as show

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Adrian Raddatz]

Hi all,

As someone who deals with a lot of long-term abuse on the community side, I
can give a bit of a comment here. Most of the abuse response comes from the
community, not the WMF- they only get involved through their Trust & Safety
team on the worst cases.

Our ability to deal with block evasion is limited at best. Anyone who wants
to is able to by-pass a block through a mobile range or a proxy, and often
times to deal with block evasion we end up blocking ranges which include a
lot of collateral damage. The Inspire campaign doesn't seem to be directed
at this, but there are ways that we could improve our abuse response - the
primary one being an email requirement on account creation, and giving some
users the ability to check accounts based on their email. This has been
done on Wikia, and when combined with IP blocks has been very effective in
reducing long-term abuse. But it is very unlikely to happen here.

It will never be possible to totally remove this sort of harassment,
because these are cases where the system has initially worked, but the user
is evading the system. As an open website, we only have a limited ability
to protect against that, and that will always be the case. And
unfortunately, this isn't an area that a code of conduct or any of those
proposals would help with.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Pax and Pete,
>
> It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be that may we need more
> effective tools for dealing with troublemakers who are banned but continue
> to return and cause problems. I'm wondering if Patrick Early can comment on
> what efforts WMF is making in terms of dealing with persistent block
> evasion.
>
> Pine
> On Jun 5, 2016 07:13, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" <list-wikime...@funcrunch.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely
> > disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.
> >
> > Some examples of what I consider harassment:
> >
> > - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default
> > )
> >
> > - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race,
> > ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability
> >
> > - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki
> >
> > - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.
> >
> > These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause
> > unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage
> > marginalized people from participating in the project.
> >
> > - Pax
> >
> >
> > On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Pax,
> >>
> >> I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and
> "harassment"
> >> can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
> >> imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one
> will
> >> ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
> >> disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption
> of
> >> good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of
> >> others
> >> is occasionally OK.
> >>
> >> So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
> >> balancing free speech with hospitality.
> >>
> >> I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that
> it
> >> is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
> >> comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
> >> nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of
> >> bounds.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
> >> harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
> >> Wikimedia sites.
> >>
> >> Thank you for speaking up.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" <list-wikime...@funcrunch.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008,
> but
> >>> this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
> >>> messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several
> months.)
> >>>
> >>> I'm writing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transparency: special WMF employee rights for Wikimedia projects

[Adrian Raddatz]

All WMF staff accounts are now required to have "WMF" in their username, so
it's pretty obvious which accounts have rights for work purposes. Given
this, is that list of advanced permissions still necessary?

Disclosure: I personally think it would be easier for all WMF staff to be
put into one or two usergroups, rather than the variety of groups existing
now and some access to non-staff rights on top of that.

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For anyone unaware, in 2014 I created a bot task to maintain a page on
> Meta[1] showing the special Wikimedia Projects rights being allocated
> to WMF employees and contractors, without following normal community
> processes. The bot mirrors data from a Google Spreadsheet maintained
> by the WMF. Back in 2014, this was praised as a positive move forward
> by the WMF in applying our joint commitment to transparency.
>
> Unfortunately the spreadsheet appeared to drop off the radar last year
> and fell into disuse, only being updated after public complaint. The
> spreadsheet has not been updated since November 2015 (over six months
> ago), includes staff who have now left and presumably excludes several
> recent changes to employee rights.
>
> Could the WMF please make a positive policy decision to ensure the
> open publication of special project rights for its employees becomes a
> required part of the procedure, and business as normal? Failing this,
> if rights are to continue to be allocated behind closed doors, with
> some rights being allocated for just a few days at a time so never
> appearing on this spreadsheet, can the rationale for managing project
> rights this way please be explained to the wider community so that we
> might be allowed the opportunity to ask basic questions?
>
> Links
> 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Fæ <fae...@gmail.com>
> Date: 25 September 2015 at 08:52
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> On 25 September 2015 at 05:46, James Alexander <jalexan...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > Hey Fae,
> >
> > As you know that I'm responsible for the spreadsheet that your bot is
> copying to make that spreadsheet (since you're one of the ones who asked me
> to make the process more transparent) I would have really appreciated a
> more private email before this public one. That said, yes there have both
> been some changes on the private versions of the sheet that caused the
> public version to break as well as very few actual rights changes which
> means I haven't been looking at it often. Because of a back log of issues
> within my Trust and Safety work I haven't been able to fully find the time
> to fix and update everything but I actually have time set aside on my
> calendar on Monday to do that :).
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> > James Alexander
> > Legal and Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > +1 415-839-6885 x6716
>
> Thanks for your commitment to get this up to date.
>
> Had my question been about the performance of a named employee, I
> would have sent a private email out of courtesy. This was a simple
> non-critical question about WMF transparency, following on from an
> original open discussion a long time ago on this list. This makes this
> list the best open place to raise the question.
>
> I feel that it is ethical to all encourage volunteers to feel free to
> ask questions about WMF transparency in the open. It would be a
> positive and ethical approach to take. Making it appear that a
> volunteer has done something wrong when they try to do so is not a
> healthy direction to go in.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Adrian Raddatz]

I like the idea of reserved seats for the global south. I would prefer to
still have some appointed members for expertise, but that number should be
diminished to give the community seats a majority.

Somewhat controversial: I'd prefer to scrap the affiliate - selected seats.
Chapters vary so much in organization and effectiveness that having seats
for them isn't ideal to me.

And, of course, let's remove Jimbo's seat. He contributes little to the
board or movement these days except for the occasional response on his talk
page, accepting awards on our behalf, and making ridiculous public comments
which are listened to due to his status. I actually have nothing against
the guy personally, but I see no need for this relic of a seat to continue.
Salam,

I sincerely appreciated any effort to craft a reform for the Board of
Trustees membership. Thank you, Dariusz and Todd. Also, apologize for
(possibly) flawed English, since it isn't my first language :)

As a volunteer from the so-called Global South community, I'm much more
concerned about the diversity issue in the Board. The issue here is that
geographical and linguistic groups that are significant in the current
state of our community should be proportionally represented. We must ensure
that their voice will be heard on deciding important issues that might also
affect them, in one way or another. Our current Board consist of no Asian
or African, a very disturbing reality especially if we consider the immense
potential and rapidly growing community in these two region.

Allow me to propose the Board composition I felt the most suitable to
accommodate this issue. This Board will be comprised of fifteen members,
all with same voting power:

- One Founder's Seat, reserved for Jimbo. While I believe that some might
found this as a strangely contrast position for any reform needed by the
Board, I think that we still need him in the Board as the voice of
moderation and what makes us completely unique to other Internet
institution.
- Six regional seats, popularly elected by the regional communities. The
proposed "regional communities" would be North America, South and Central
America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and
Asia Pacific and Oceania.
- Five at-large seats, or what we call today as community seats. Like the
regional one, it will be popularly elected --- but by the whole community.
- Three affiliate seats, elected by the affiliate and thematic
organizations.

Yes, there might be some flaw in this proposal. The biggest concern will be
how to define and categorize a project into a specific "regional
community". Maybe we could categorize the editors based on where do they
edit (English Wikipedia editors will be voting for European seat) or where
do they reside (which also possibly will raise question about privacy etc).

Some might also question about why there is no more appointed seats. While
I do agree with those who are saying that we need professional experts to
sit in the Board, I believe that their power and influence should be
nowhere more than the community to avoid another Arnnon-like controversy.
So I would like to see them as members of the Advisory Board (as discussed
in another thread before), possibly with increased function.

I'd be very grateful to know your thoughts.

Best,

Ramzy
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UN subscribe me from Wikimedia---IMMEDIATELY

[Adrian Raddatz]

You do realize that every message has an unsubscribe option at the
bottom, right? That's the easiest way to get off of this list.


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Isaacs dwi...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I request to removed from the lists of people interested in receiving
 information from Wikimedia.

 UNsubscribe my account Immediately.

 My E-Mail Address:   dwi...@yahoo.com

 I will EXPECT  to receive a confirmation that my Wikimedia Account is
 PERMANENTLY  CLOSED.

 Mary K. Isaacs
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Adrian Raddatz
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l